Re: Why Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?
Shanger ji,
First of all I need to remind you that my argument with you is mostly with regard to your projection of wrong intention on the part of those whose thoughts have been expressed in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. You say that their aim is to ‘control people’ which up until now I interpreted more or less as ‘influence uncalled for’, but no real thought to control. But now I see that you have suggested, although only for the sake of argument, that they could in fact have lied. This means that you really think that they did have in mind to do what you claim they did.
Why do I bother to give my own comments, after all it is none of my business? One reason is that I like to argue ;-), or rather, I like to discuss, but there is also that I’d like to get some sense into you and yes, this is based on the judgment that I am right and you are wrong! Is this trying to control you? And what if interspersed are motivations influenced by kindness, by giving and by compassion, would you still think it is manipulative?
========
Me: I still do not see why you should arrive at this conclusion. I’ve not commented so far because I’m not a Sikh and I do not believe in God, any version of it. But at no time has such a conclusion ever been necessitated, for example that Guru Nanak taught what he did with the intention to control people!?
You:
There are threats of being stuck in the cycle of reincarnation unless one complies with worshipping god, that is controlling people through fear.
I am fully aware sikhi doesn't dictate peoples lives to a large extent like other religions but that still is a method of controlling people.
C: “Threatening”, this would be with evil intention conditioned by self-love and aversion. If reincarnation is sincerely believed to be a fact and if praying to God amongst other things, is sincerely seen as being the way out, how does conveying this message to other people qualify it as a threat, especially since that person himself does the same? It is clear that *you* do not believe in the concept and may have at one point read such message as a threat, but would this not have been due to your own misreading and inherent aversion?
========
Quote Me:Below are some points you might like to consider. I do not know the facts, but it should not matter if I misrepresent and misinterpret what actually took place. Since the main point I want to make is that people are inspired and like to share their knowledge and understandings:
-Guru Nanak experienced what may be called “God-consciousness”.
-The impression was of coming to have knowledge and understanding, including a perspective regarding good and evil not seen before, which could only come from the experience of such a state.
You:
Maybe Guru Nanak did experience God-consciousness, or maybe he lied or had mental issues (no disrespect).
C: Well, isn’t the problem in that you are *insisting on the negative interpretation*? Or are you here not so much to clarify things but in fact to test other people’s intelligence?
=======
You:
The idea of good and evil was not revolutionary, there have always been ideas of what is wrong and right.
C: No one has claimed that. What is suggested are attitudes of mind and practices leading to the “development” of good and the reduction of evil. But so what even if they are not revolutionary and were taught by other people in previous times? Can’t people just share their understandings and can’t others compile these into a comprehensive set of teachings?
=======
Quote Me:-One could therefore say that the knowledge was given by God.
-There is a sense of gratitude associated with this.
-This is expressed by way of praise for the source of such knowledge, namely God.
-Sometimes this praise comes in the form of extoling God in terms of his power.
-Sometimes the praise is toward ethical qualities.
-Practices are prescribed whereby others could also have the same experience.
You:
Like I said, maybe Guru Nanak did experience God-consciousness, or maybe he lied or had mental issues (no disrespect).
C: And like I said, were you not insisting on the negative, you’d not pursue with this line of enquiry, unless of course, you are in fact testing other people’s intelligence.
=======
Quote Me:-But not everyone will be able to achieve this. For them, suggestions aimed at living a reasonably moral life have been given.
You: Well then that isn't very fair is it? That goes back to my reasoning that I could write my own book and say those who cannot feel the spirituality just cannot achieve it.
C: No, this is not a case of judging anyone in particular and condemning them. But the fact is still there, that people are *not* equal in terms of ability to understand. Indeed they are not equal in the tendency to “misunderstand”. Not everyone can be encouraged to think good and act rightly, and of those who can, not all will have the understanding to “develop” those qualities. This should not stop those who teach, from adapting in accordance to the situation having taken into account both the person’s capacity as well as his present mental state.
========
Quote Me: Do you think sharing knowledge is in fact an expression of intention to ‘control people’?
You: Expecting people to live a certain way with threats of not reaching salvation, is controlling people.
& it is not knowledge that holds any weight unless proven.
C: Again, you read it as a threat, whereas others will read it as good suggestion. Why is it? I do not believe that you have a limited capacity to discern and in principle come up with possible alternatives as to what state of mind apprehends any statement made by others. What I keep seeing however, is cynicism on your part and the insistence on any reasoning issuing forth from this.
Regarding the rightness or wrongness of the particular teaching, you insist on proof, the kind which you are used to thinking about in matters of science and other convention. For example, you may be satisfied with proofs such as that the earth revolves around the sun as given by certain fields of knowledge. But this is preferred thinking on a matter which is limited in scope. I mean, someone cynical, how far could he go in trying to argue against the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? You are dealing with limited data here and one which need not take into account states of mind, whether this is tainted by ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding or right understanding.
When it comes to such matters as karma and rebirth however, there is either right understanding or there is wrong understanding with subsequent influence from attachment, aversion, faith etc. Someone who has high tendency to wrong understanding, what “evidence” would ever satisfy him? Indeed he’d insist on the kind of evidence such as that got by science, which to begin with, is a wrong approach, but even then would he not likely talk himself out of believing any evidence given down the road? And why is this?
The reason is that this is in fact a matter of “understanding” an aspect of experience where cause and effect are mental phenomena, and this is very different from that which is derived from conventional observation. In this regard, you with the influence of science are therefore in a totally different position from someone else, particularly those in India during ancient times, for whom the idea of karma and rebirth is more or less an accepted fact. In other words, you with your doubt and they with their faith / confidence are not to be compared.
And just to let you know, these same people could well be good scientists if they were inclined to, having separated the one kind of observation and thinking from the other. Indeed they’d not look for evidence for rebirth as in someone claiming and providing evidence that they were this or that person in a previous life. This is not what arouses their confidence, but rather the understanding of mind, including distinguishing what is cause from what is result.
========
Quote Me: Would you consider generosity with regard to material objects also the same way?
You:
I'm sorry I dont understand what you mean here.
C: When the urge to help someone arises and you do it, does it impress upon you as a case of ‘control’?
